Yep, NASA is trying to suppress the story by putting out a press release. Makes perfect sense.

A lot of it is probably allocation of cost of shared resources. For instance "the Deep Space Network costs $x/year, this mission is using it y% of the time, therefore this mission is costing $x * y% per year". Same for teams of people (this mission used x% of these people's time), facilities, etc.

Now, does that mean they will save $20M/year cancelling this program? No, because the other users are still there. But it DOES free up those resources to be used on other missions, etc without spending MORE money. This is how budgets work in organizations and businesses. You can see this if you read, for instance, transcripts of congressional budget hearings. If you look at NASAs hearing around 1972 you will see they are talking about working on the space shuttle and how much that will cost. One of the Senators asked "where is that money coming from" and the answer was "the end of Apollo".

Are you actually trying to claim IBM mainframes are not "modern metal"? You haven't got a clue. And over half of mainframe workload is now 'non-traditional' so that 'haven't figured out how to migrate' line is just more nonsense.

That's silly. Eye exam charts are just used to see if (and how much) correction is needed to get to acceptable vision. Every eye test I ever took I was able to read the smallest line (with correction). They never try to take it down to the point of 'failure'. Eye tests just say 'everyone else can see this at 20 feet, and so can you' (20/20). They don't say 'the absolute smallest thing you can see is x arcseconds' (for instance).

Maybe try reading it again. It doesn't say anything about people using 27" displays. It says THEY used a 27" display to determine the resolution limit of normal vision. Then they calculated, for different display sizes, resolutions, and distances when the resolution of the display was greater than the vision resolution.

No, I don't remember anyone ever saying that. The difference was immediately obvious to anyone with normal vision. I do remember people debating whether Blu-Ray was significantly better than upscaled DVDs at normal viewing distance, but that is far different than HDTV vs NTSC.

Having your SSN and financial details exposed is a 'minor inconvenience'? No.

The government? It is a civil case.

So what was the point of your completely worthless comment? For a really impressive number, why don't you see how many NOPs you can do in a second?

People who are purchasing mainframe-type equipment are interested in how fast THEIR workload will run. Nobody gives a crap how fast a useless transaction can run if everything happens to be in the cache.

Your comment is a perfect example of how to completely mislead people with a so-called "benchmark".

With a 4.7Ghz processor, that leaves 1000 cycles for you to do a 'transaction'. You won't even have the transaction decrypted and routed to the right handler in that time. A credit card purchase is a transaction. A trivial update to a trivial database is not.

It's 40 terabytes of RAM, not disk.

Ancient metal? Who is running ancient metal? The current generation of mainframes is 2 years old, and includes dedicated AI inference hardware on each chip.

SIKE was not endorsed by NIST. It was a candidate for standardization. It failed.

Yet they appear to drive exactly like a 16 year old. They do the same stupid crap, like just stop where they are when they get confused.

What a great example of "how to lie with statistics". Compare the MAXIMUM sentence of one crime with the AVERAGE TIME SERVED of another.

The MAXIMUM sentence for murder is life without possibility of parole (or in some states, death). The average time served before first release for murder is 18 years.

The MAXIMUM sentence for wire fraud is 20 years. The average time served (for fraud of this size) is about 5 years.